So you think humanity transformed from consuming resources in equilibrium with the ecology, like animals do, to consuming resources recklessly, unlike animals?
Not just resource consumption. A complete alteration to how humans operate. From egalitarian to class stratification and patriarchy. From peaceful to warring. Docile to aggressive. Living in harmony with the natural world to inflicting our will upon it.
It’s always been the assumption that these changes came with the advent of civilization and the alternate lifestyle it provided. When in actuality, the behavior changes came first. Civilization, it would seem, is the product of these, and not the other way around.
Like the Native Americans of the Plains. They didn’t live the civilization lifestyle, yet manifested all the same traits.
So you think humans changed from being unlike animals actually are (as opposed to how you think they are) to being like animals actually are.
Which begs the question of how and when humans became unlike animals in the first place - if they ever did.
The obvious question, then, is: what behaviour changes? There don’t seem to be any. The behaviours you are describing in post-change humans are all found in animals too.
This table shows a contrast between extreme forms of patrist (fallen) and matrist (unfallen) cultures…
You didn’t answer the question.
I’m sorry. Wasn’t this your question?
I answered with this table of behavior characteristics.
I get what you’re getting at. That male dominance does exist within mammals. But it didn’t exist in unfallen humans. It’s an interesting suggestion, that human behavior evolved away from that of the animal kingdom, then quickly returned. But what I’m focusing on is the original topic.
This, I’m proposing, is what distinguished them. Not genetically different. Psychologically different.
But this is something to consider. These behaviors weren’t given. They weren’t added where they didn’t exist before. They were awakened. Coaxed out from within. A return to a more primal behavioral pattern? It’s interesting to consider.
To be clear, and I’m not sure I have been to this point, I’m talking about the emergence of the ego. The intensification of the human sense of “I” or individuality.
Like in this observation of the Pueblo Native Americans of New Mexico in the 1920’s …
“What struck Lawrence most was how massively different the Indians’ state of being was from that of Europeans. As he wrote, 'The Indian way of consciousness is different from and fatal to our way of consciousness … The two ways, the two streams are never to be united. They are not even to be reconciled.” And one major reason for this difference, he sensed, was that the Indians don’t experience the state of separateness to the cosmos which we do. Whereas we are ‘separated off,’ they live in a state of 'oneness with all life … an ancient tribal unison in which the individual is hardly separated out."
These characteristics that I’m pointing out, the ‘patrism’ characteristics, are the result of this. Evidence of this. An intensification of the ego, the sense of “I”.
This is, more specifically, the psychological change I’m speaking of.
Which doesn’t answer the question.
Even if there is a difference between two types of society, patrist vs matrist, that doesn’t establish which existed originally, or when and how that changed into the other.
We can establish which existed originally, and when that changed. How is the question.
Matrist came first. Patrist was a very late development in the course of human history …
“There does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of patrism anywhere on Earth significantly prior to c.4000 BCE.” - James DeMeo, Saharasia
There being no evidence of patrism does not establish that matrism came first if there is no evidence of matrism either. Unless you have evidence of matrism from that far back, your conclusion is fallacious.
Also, that 'quote 'of DeMeo is wrong. There is evidence of violence in society from before 4000BC. This find, for example.
Which leads me to a problem with your ‘quote’. It isn’t what DeMeo wrote. From your own link, his actual words were: “I have concluded that there does not exist any clear, compelling or unambiguous evidence for the existence of significant patrism anywhere on Earth prior to c.4000 BCE”. You’ve removed ‘significant’ from ‘evidence’, and added it to ‘prior’.
Why did you do that? Are you also misquoting your other sources?
The quote I just used came from Taylor’s book. Maybe he transposed the words. The quote I used says “on Earth significantly”. It says the same thing, just a slightly different wording order.
But that example of violence you sited is why he qualifies his statement with “significantly”. There are examples of violence elsewhere, as you pointed out. Small pockets here and there, similar to what’s found in the animal kingdom, like with dolphins for example.
Then you should start noting that your quotes are indirect, so that any discrepancies are down to Taylor, not you. Better yet, stop using Taylor’s book.
It doesn’t say the same thing.
So we have some evidence for patrism prior to 4000 BCE, albeit not necessarily significant patrism. You didn’t cite any evidence of matrism that far back, and DeMeo doesn’t either. At one point he even admits there is no evidence of matrism: “The inference of matrism in these early times is also made from the absence of archaeological evidence for chaos, warfare, sadism, and brutality, which becomes quite evident in more recent strata, after Saharasia dried up”.*
So your conclusion appears baseless.
*He also cites a couple of sources, but they include Velikovsky’s long-discredited books so that doesn’t mean much, other than you should also stop using DeMeo.
"From the evidence we have, it seems that this is how all human beings lived until 4000BC. In Saharasia James DeMeo uses the term “matrism” to refer to cultures which are “democratic, egalitarian, sex-positive, and possess very low levels of adult violence.” - Taylor
This has remained consistent with what I’ve found while researching.
Yes, there’s less evidence to go on for unsettled hunter-gatherer groups. But there is a good deal of evidence. Where it’s probably most apparent is in the large farming communities in northern Mesopotamia, the first settled communities, 1000’s of years before the first Patrist pocket in early Sumer.
“Catal Huyuk had an estimated 7000 inhabitants and flourished between 7000BC and 5500BC. In the 1500 years of its heyday, it shows no evidence of any damage by warfare; in fact, there is no sign of any violent contact between human begins at all. Catal Huyuk was apparently a multi-ethnic society, but there is no sign of any conflict between the different peoples who lived and worked there.” - Taylor
I go to Taylor and DeMeo often because they’re speaking about the evidence in this particular context. It often directly addresses the topic more so than other sources. But I do often use other sources to confirm what they’re claiming here.
I wouldn’t just load you guys down with a bunch of unsubstantiated BS.
Here’s a few quotes from people who would know. so you don’t just have to go by what I or Taylor says …
“it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting… All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace.” - Archaeologist WJ Perry
“For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began (until 4000 BCE), there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all.” - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel
“the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution…despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic.” -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
Then, after the emergence of Patrism in the region, that all changed …
"Towards the end of the sixth millennium BCE, some sites in Anatolia - including Catal Huyuk - were damaged by fighting, leaving the bodies of massacred victims. (Catal Huyuk was finally destroyed at around 4800BCE). Semitic peoples from the Zagros mountains invaded Syria and Mesopotamia, causing great devastation. Fortifications began to appear throughout the Middle East, and many sites show what archaeologists call “destruction layers.” - Taylor
We can determine where and when this change happened, and doing so substantiates two details of the Genesis story…
- This caused the presence of two ‘types’ of humans interacting in the region
- This began right where and when the biblical stories say it does and spread throughout the planet from there
Not to mention the claim that sin entered the world through Adam. This also lends credence to that.
This is interesting. I’ve been looking into these discredited books. Doesn’t seem as severe as your statement.
In fact, from what I’ve found, his “discredited books” were regarding his claims in the matters of “celestial mechanics” in relation to ancient mythological legends. Nothing to do with what we’re discussing here.
So I find it interesting you’re basically suggesting I should dismiss everything and everyone who refers to his work. Any work, relevant or not, apparently.
Stephen Jay Gould offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, “Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong … Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.”
"Velikovsky’s bestselling, and as a consequence most criticized, book is Worlds in Collision . Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan’s decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and [conservation of angular momentum](Angular momentum - Wikipedia).- Immanuel Velikovsky - Wikipedia
No, just anyone who refers to his work as if it were valid - which doesn’t include Gould. Nor was it just his planetary bar billiards that was flawed. The rest of his work was no better. For example, he confused hydrocarbons with carbohydrates in his section about the origin of manna.
Then what do you call this:
I checked that quote. You seem to have got it from Taylor, who may have got it from Ross, who got it from Heinberg, who may or may not have got it direct from Perry. If you didn’t get it from Taylor, then it’s a huge coincidence that you put the ellipsis in the same place as both Taylor and Ross and hyphenated ‘food-gathering’ as Taylor did, but Ross via Heinberg didn’t.
The other two quotes also appear in Taylor’s book, again with the same start/end/aside/ellipsis as you used - so I think you got them from Taylor too. Which means I do have to go by what Taylor says.
I doubt you’ve read a single word by Perry, Gabriel or Eisler other than those quoted by Taylor, let alone checked whether they actually wrote those passages, whether Taylor has quoted them correctly (remember he misquoted DeMeo) or know the context or the elided words, let alone the facts and data those authors use to support their conclusions.
Since you can’t vouch for the accuracy, veracity, validity or reliability of those passages and are trying once again to pass 3rd-hand copies off as original quotes, then yes, you are loading us down with unsubstantiated BS.
I did get those quotes from Taylor’s book. It’s difficult to find references that so directly address this topic. And the DeMeo quote I’m sure wasn’t misquoted. One just came from his book, Saharasia, the other from that website. He said the same thing, but worded it slightly differently.
I have used Taylor’s and DeMeo’s roadmap and have checked every stop along the way. Every culture I looked into to further flesh these out I found nothing but consistency with what they were saying.
I’m here, laying all of this out, because I want to know if it’s BS. I don’t want to just be wrong in my views. I’ve tried to break this silly little theory of mine for the 10 years it’s been tormenting me. Looking for anything that can allow me to drop it. Dismiss it. Forget it. Stop pulling people into tedious discussions about it.
I’m not lying or BSing you or anyone here. I’m sharing with you what I legitimately think is true. If there is BS in here, I’ll appreciate if you can help me see it.